Originally posted by Proper Knob
I know what happened according to evolutionary theory, i'm asking you to give your side of the story, which i hope will be a little more substantial than 'God created them according to their kinds'. So i have two questions for you -
1. How does the abundance of fossils which clearly show land based animals merging into water based animals fit into you ...[text shortened]... d?
Edit - I see you have a concrete definition of what a 'kind' is, that will be useful.
The fossil record details whole species appearing without precedent and is open to
interpretation, for example,
Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon
State University, comments: “A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to
conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not
change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in
agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to
reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of
fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that
the in-between forms will never be found.”
which is an interpretation and an evaluation of the very same data that you cite for
its entirely typical and rather banal to be honest, for the materialist to specify a
specific instance in an attempt to bolster his case, rather than look and evaluate the
whole objectively, that's why you cite whales. Its not my scheme of things, i didn't
author it. Why would the Bible provide details of how creation took place, its not a
scientific textbook is it? would you expect Darwin to detail how the holy spirit
operates in Origin of the species? No, well then, lets not be silly.